DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states:
“…dealing with an electrical fault of the determined type of the battery abnormality in a battery system comprising the battery”.
In light of the specification, it is unclear how said limitation is being defined. With respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, for examination purposes, it will be assumed that this limitation is merely generic ‘apply it’ language and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 11 recites
capture the plurality of characteristic values measured from a battery during the operation of the battery to form a characteristic curve;
perform a curve fitting on the characteristic curve to obtain a curve error;
determine whether a magnitude of the curve error is greater than or equal to a threshold value;
perform a step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve
to
determine whether the battery is normal
in response to
determining that the magnitude of the curve error is greater than or equal to the threshold value,
wherein
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve comprises:
dividing the characteristic curve into a plurality of first segments,
wherein
a number of a plurality of valid points included in each of the first segments is greater than a preset number;
finding a plurality of characteristic value groups
and
calculating an aggregated value error between the characteristic value groups according to the characteristic values of the valid points in each of the first segments,
so as to
determine whether the characteristic value groups are centralized;
and
determines a type of a battery abnormality according to a position of a segment in the characteristic curve where the aggregated value error is abnormal when the battery is determined to be abnormal.
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, Claim(s) 2-5, 7-9, 12-15, 17-19 recite(s)
wherein
performing the curve fitting on the characteristic curve comprises:
performing a polynomial fitting on the characteristic curve and adjusting a polynomial power, so that a function curve constructed by an adjusted polynomial function fits the characteristic curve;
determining whether the polynomial power of the adjusted polynomial function is less than a preset power; and
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve when the polynomial power is less than the preset power.
wherein
performing the curve fitting on the characteristic curve comprises:
calculating a full-range curve error of the characteristic curve and
determining whether a ratio of the full-range curve error to an average curvature of the characteristic curve is less than a preset ratio;
determining that the battery is normal when the ratio is less than the preset ratio; and
performing the polynomial fitting on the plurality of the characteristic values when the ratio is not less than the preset ratio.
wherein
performing the curve fitting on the characteristic curve comprises:
performing a peak fitting on the characteristic curve using at least one peak function to find at least one surge wave in the characteristic curve that conforms to the at least one peak function;
determining whether a number of the at least one surge wave found is less than a preset surge wave number; and
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve when the number is less than the preset surge wave number.
wherein
performing the curve fitting on the characteristic curve further comprises:
constructing a natural function curve using a natural function when the polynomial power is determined to be not less than the preset power and a number is not less than a preset surge wave number;
confirming whether the natural function curve is included in the characteristic curve; and
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve when the natural function curve is not included in the characteristic curve.
wherein
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve further comprises:
dividing the characteristic curve into a plurality of second segments when the characteristic value groups are determined to be centralized,
wherein
a length of a second segment is less than a length of a first segment;
determining whether a change in a slope of the characteristic curve in each of the second segments is less than a preset ratio; and
determining whether the battery is normal according to the aggregated value error of the characteristic value groups when the change in the slope is not less than the preset ratio.
wherein
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve further comprises:
determining
whether the battery is normal according to the aggregated value error of the characteristic value groups and
whether an abnormal point is included in a temperature curve of the battery when a change in a slope is not less than a preset ratio.
wherein
performing the step-curvature radius analysis on the characteristic curve further comprises:
determining whether a surge wave is included according to a change in a slope of the characteristic curve of each of the first segments; and
determining whether the battery is normal according to the aggregated value error of the characteristic value groups when the characteristic value groups are determined to be centralized and the characteristic curve comprises the surge wave
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. data capturing device; a processor, coupled to the data capturing device and the sensor, configured to: dealing with an electrical fault of the determined type of the battery abnormality in a battery system comprising the battery);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data acquisition/output (i.e., a sensor configured to measuring a plurality of characteristic values); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. of a battery during an operation of the battery; dealing with an electrical fault of the determined type of the battery abnormality in a battery system comprising the battery).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure; generic data acquisition structure)).
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
See prior OA, mailed 06/03/2025, for the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 01/07/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 10-13, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Discussion of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has rejected Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101, asserting that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. As amended, independent claims 1 and 11 now integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, thereby satisfying Step 2A, Prong II of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims are patent-eligible.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See response below.
-Applicant states
“Regarding Step 2A, Prong I in the revised guidance, it is respectfully submitted that the claims are not directed merely to an abstract idea.
While the Examiner characterizes the claims as involving mathematical relationships or calculations, the claims are not directed to mathematics in the abstract, but rather to a specific technical process for battery detection and fault dealing in a battery system.
The claimed method is rooted in measuring physical characteristics of a battery during operation, forming a characteristic curve from real-world sensor data, and performing structured analyses on that curve to detect abnormal battery conditions. These steps are not mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind, nor are they disembodied mathematical concepts.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner maintains previous response to arguments:
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed invention: utilizing generic/conventional data acquisition structure as a tool to generically acquire/measure/sense a broad scope of generic characteristic values of a battery, and utilizing generic/conventional computing structure as a tool to perform mathematical analysis with the said generic characteristic values to get a result.
With regards to step 2A Prong 1: Examiner identified the limitations that would fall within the scope of an abstract idea. One skilled in the art can perform the identified abstract limitations via mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Therefore, there is an abstract idea present in the claim invention.
-Applicant states
“Regarding Step 2A, Prong II in the revised guidance, even assuming arguendo that certain steps recite mathematical analysis, the claims as amended clearly satisfy Step 2A, Prong II.
Under Step 2A, Prong II, a claim is patent-eligible if it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, by applying the result of the analysis to effect a real-world action or improve a technical system.
As amended, independent claims 1 and 11 explicitly recite the steps of "determining a type of a battery abnormality according to a position of a segment in the characteristic curve where the aggregated value error is abnormal when the battery is determined to be abnormal" and "dealing with an electrical fault of the determined type of the battery abnormality in a battery system comprising the battery". These limitations apply the result of the mathematical analysis to take concrete action on a physical battery system. The claimed method does not stop at identifying or classifying data; instead, it uses the determination of the battery abnormality type to address an electrical fault, thereby directly affecting the operation and safety of the battery system. Accordingly, the mathematical analysis is not an end in itself, but a means to enable corrective or protective action in a real-world electrical system.
The claimed invention further provides a technical improvement in the field of battery detection and battery management systems, as described in paragraph [0023] of the specification.
As illustrated in paragraph [0023] of the specification, the processor 14 may divide the characteristic curve into multiple segments according to the step and find the characteristic value of the valid point in each segment to determine whether the characteristic values are centralized or discrete. When it is determined that the characteristic values are centralized, the processor 14 may further determine whether the battery is normal or abnormal according to the aggregated value error of the characteristic values, and determine the type of the battery abnormality according to the position of the segment in the characteristic curve where the aggregated value error is abnormal.
Specifically, the claims recite a two-stage detection mechanism combining curve fitting analysis with step-curvature radius analysis. This structure improves the efficiency and timeliness of abnormal battery detection, as compared with conventional systems that rely on long-term monitoring and extensive electrical databases of healthy batteries. The improvement lies not in an abstract algorithm, but in how battery abnormalities are detected and handled in practice during battery operation. Thus, the claims recite a specific asserted improvement in computer-assisted battery technology, which the USPTO and courts have consistently recognized as a hallmark of eligibility.
The amended claims now explicitly define how abnormality is determined, how the type of abnormality is identified, and how the system responds to that abnormality. These limitations tie the analysis to a concrete technical workflow, reinforcing that the claims are directed to a specific technological solution, not a generalized abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that an improved abstract idea remains abstract. The applicant agrees with this legal principle. However, the claims, as currently amended, does not merely improve an abstract idea. Rather, the amended claims improve the operation of a battery detection system by applying analytical results to trigger real-world fault dealing in a battery system. This constitutes a practical application of the analysis, not merely a refinement of mathematical reasoning.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the applicant respectfully submits the amended claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, apply analytical results to perform a physical action on a battery system, and thus provide a concrete technical improvement in battery detection efficiency and fault handling.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101, and the applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejection.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The amendment adds additional language that is interpreted as an abstract idea (see updated rejection above).
Further, the language of “…dealing with an electrical fault of the determined type of the battery abnormality in a battery system comprising the battery” is interpreted as adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which are limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(c) for further guidance for a ‘Particular Transformation’ when analyzing 101. For example, what particular transformation is taking place to ‘deal’ with an electrical fault in a battery system comprising the battery?
See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit